Exploring differential item functioning in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Diane Dixon²  Marie Johnston¹  Beth Pollard¹ 

[1] Aberdeen Health Psychology Group, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK;School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

关键词: Measurement equivalence;    Differential item functioning;    Item bias;    Psychometrics;    WOMAC;    Osteoarthritis;   

Others  :  1134289
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-13-265

 received in 2012-07-30, accepted in 2012-12-20,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) is a widely used patient reported outcome in osteoarthritis. An important, but frequently overlooked, aspect of validating health outcome measures is to establish if items exhibit differential item functioning (DIF). That is, if respondents have the same underlying level of an attribute, does the item give the same score in different subgroups or is it biased towards one subgroup or another. The aim of the study was to explore DIF in the Likert format WOMAC for the first time in a UK osteoarthritis population with respect to demographic, social, clinical and psychological factors.

Methods

The sample comprised a community sample of 763 people with osteoarthritis who participated in the Somerset and Avon Survey of Health. The WOMAC was explored for DIF by gender, age, social deprivation, social class, employment status, distress, body mass index and clinical factors. Ordinal regression models were used to identify DIF items.

Results

After adjusting for age, two items were identified for the physical functioning subscale as having DIF with age identified as the DIF factor for 2 items, gender for 1 item and body mass index for 1 item. For the WOMAC pain subscale, for people with hip osteoarthritis one item was identified with age-related DIF. The impact of the DIF items rarely had a significant effect on the conclusions of group comparisons.

Conclusions

Overall, the WOMAC performed well with only a small number of DIF items identified. However, as DIF items were identified in for the WOMAC physical functioning subscale it would be advisable to analyse data taking into account the possible impact of the DIF items when weight, gender or especially age effects, are the focus of interest in UK-based osteoarthritis studies. Similarly for the WOMAC pain subscale in people with hip osteoarthritis it would be worthwhile to analyse data taking into account the possible impact of the DIF item when age comparisons are of primary interest.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Pollard et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]NICE: [http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG059FullGuideline.pdf] webciteOsteoarthritis: National clinical guideline for care and management in adults.
• [2]Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW: Validation study of WOMAC - a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug-therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988, 15:1833-1840.
• [3]Brockow T, Cieza A, Kuhlow H, Sigl T, Franke T, Harder M, et al.: Identifying the concepts contained in outcome measures of clinical trials on musculoskeletal disorders and chronic widespread pain using the international classification of functioning, disability and health as a reference. J Rehabil Med 2004, 36:30-36.
• [4]Covic T, Pallant JF, Conaghan PG, Tennant A: A longitudinal evaluation of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression scale (CES-D) in a rheumatoid arthritis population using Rasch analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:41. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Zumbo BD, Koh KH: Manifestation of differences in item-level characteristics in scale-level measurement invariance tests of multi group confirmatory factor analysis. J Mod App Stat Met 2005, 4:275-282.
• [6]Teresi JA, Fleishman JA: Differential item functioning and health assessment. Qual Life Res 2007, 16(Suppl 1):33-42.
• [7]McHorney CA, Fleishman JA: Assessing and understanding measurement equivalence in health outcome measures. Issues for further quantitative and qualitative inquiry. Med Care 2006, 44:S205-S210.
• [8]Teresi JA, Golden RR, Cross P, Gurland B, Kleinman M, Wilder D: Item bias in cognitive screening measures: comparisons of elderly white, Afro-American, Hispanic and high and low education subgroups. J Clin Epidemiol 1995, 48:473-483.
• [9]Nijsten T, Meads DM, de Korte J, Sampogna F, Gelfand JM, Ongenae K, et al.: Cross-cultural inequivalence of dermatology-specific health-related quality of life instruments in psoriasis patients. J Invest Dermatol 2007, 127:2315-2322.
• [10]McKenna SP, Doward LC, Meads DM, Tennant A, Lawton G, Grueger J: Quality of life in infants and children with atopic dermatitis: addressing issues of differential item functioning across countries in multinational clinical trials. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:45. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Sprangers MA, Oort FJ, Hopper JL: The value of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) for comparing women with early onset breast cancer with population-based reference women. Qual Life Res 2004, 13:191-206.
• [12]Dallmeijer AJ, de Groot V, Roorda LD, Schepers VP, Lindeman E, Van den Berg LH, et al.: Cross-diagnostic validity of the SF-36 physical functioning scale in patients with stroke, multiple sclerosis and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a study using Rasch analysis. J Rehabil Med 2007, 39:163-169.
• [13]Taylor WJ, McPherson KM: Using Rasch analysis to compare the psychometric properties of the short form 36 physical function score and the health assessment questionnaire disability index in patients with psoriatic arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57:723-729.
• [14]Roorda LD, Jones CA, Waltz M, Lankhorst GJ, Bouter LM, van der Eijken JW, et al.: Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 2004, 63:36-42.
• [15]Davis AM, Badley EM, Beaton DE, Kopec J, Wright JG, Young NL, et al.: Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario McMaster (WOMAC) Osteoarthritis Index: results from community and arthroplasty samples. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:1076-1083.
• [16]Rothenfluh DA, Reedwisch D, Muller U, Ganz R, Tennant A, Leunig M: Construct validity of a 12-item WOMAC for assessment of femoro-acetabular impingement and osteoarthritis of the hip. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008, 16:1032-1038.
• [17]Kersten P, White PJ, Tennant A: The visual analogue WOMAC 3.0 scale–internal validity and responsiveness of the VAS version. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010, 11:80. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Eachus J, Williams M, Chan P, Smith GD, Grainge M, Donovan J, et al.: Deprivation and cause specific morbidity: evidence from the Somerset and Avon survey of health. BMJ 1996, 312:287-292.
• [19]Juni P, Dieppe P, Donovan J, Peters T, Eachus J, Pearson N, et al.: Population requirement for primary knee replacement surgery: a cross-sectional study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003, 42:516-521.
• [20]Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS: Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957, 16:494-502.
• [21]Lorezo-Seva U, Ferrando PJ: [http://psico.fcep.urv.es/utilitats/factor/Download.html] webciteFACTOR. 2007.
• [22]Anderson RO: The theoretical development and empirical evaluation of a logistic regression, paired-comparisons procedure for assessing unidimensionality in the Rasch model. Minnesota: University of Minnesota; 1994. PhD
• [23]Cooke DJ, Michie C, Hart SD, Hare RD: Evaluating the screening version of the hare psychopathy checklist - Revised (PCL: SV): an item response theory analysis. Psychol Assess 1999, 11:3-13.
• [24]Velicer WF: Psychometrika. 1976, 41:321-327.
• [25]Zumbo BD: A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic Regression Modeling as a Unitary Framework for Binary and Likert-type (Ordinal) Item Scores. Ottawa, ON: Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defense; 1999.
• [26]Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ: Detecting differential item functioning using logistic regression procedures. J Educ Meas 1990, 26:361-370.
• [27]Zumbo BD: Psychometric Methods for Investigating Item and Scale/Test Level Invariance: DIF and Scale level Techniques. Liverpool, England: 6th International Test Commission Conference; 2008.
• [28]Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Ocepek-Welikson K, Cook K, Cella D, Narasimhalu K, et al.: A comparison of three sets of criteria for determining the presence of differential item functioning using ordinal logistic regression. Qual Life Res 2007, 16(Suppl 1):69-84.
• [29]Crane PK, Gibbons LE, Jolley L, van Belle G: Differential item functioning analysis with ordinal logistic regression techniques. DIFdetect and difwithpar. Med Care 2006, 44:S115-S123.
• [30]Perkins AJ, Stump TE, Monahan PO, McHorney CA: Assessment of differential item functioning for demographic comparisons in the MOS SF-36 health survey. Qual Life Res 2006, 15:331-348.
• [31]Lewis C: A note on the value of including the studied item in the test score when analyzing test items for DIF. In Differential Item Functioning. Edited by Holland P, Wainer H. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1993:317-319.
• [32]Wolfe F, Hawley DJ, Goldenberg DL, Russell IJ, Buskila D, Neumann L: The assessment of functional impairment in fibromyalgia (FM): Rasch analyses of 5 functional scales and the development of the FM Health Assessment Questionnaire. J Rheumatol 2000, 27:1989-1999.
• [33]Hambleton RK: Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Med Care 2006, 44:S182-S188.
• [34]Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, Groenvold M, et al.: Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses of health-related quality of life instruments using logistic regression. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010, 8:81.
• [35]Teresi JA: Different approaches to differential item functioning in health applications. Advantages, disadvantages and some neglected topics. Med Care 2006, 44:S152-S170.